Jesus is not God

[Oeste]

Damn, you could fool me there. If you do, you sure are NOT showing any signs of having understood.

Hebrews 1:8 was quoting Psalm 45:6-7, and making slight changes to showcase Jesus as God DO NOT make Jesus God.

Any verse/passage that DO NOT CONTRADICT what God Almighty already DECLARED OF HIMSELF, and of what Jesus already said of himself, can be accepted as true.

Are you a scriptwriter?? Hollywood could use your talent!

Don’t kid yourself, buddy.

Am I having a conversation with a kid here???

Show you what?? I think I have shown you everything that needs to be shown but, you keep harping the same old questions over and over again like a broken record. Move on, buddy!

As I said earlier, you don’t know what you are talking about when it comes to the scripture.

As usual, ‘spitting’ nonsense again!

Yeah, I think we're done.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then please present your non-circular reasoning.

I don't have any reasoning since I did not do the research on how the Bible was compiled.
I rely upon biblical scholars and historians who have done extensive research.

This statement is an unevidenced proclamation that lacks context. Let's give it some.

The apostles I am referring to are the NT apostles, the apostles of Jesus.

Jesus is the Son of God. He is a prophet of God, and as the Son of God, He is God.

A prophet that does not come from God has no authority, and does not need to be recognized by any apostle, any teacher, or any believer of God. That is something 1Corinthians 14:36-38 makes clear. Not all prophets are from God. Some prophets are from God, some simply believe they are, and some prophets come from other sources. The bible refers to these prophets as false prophets, as the only true prophets are from God.

So YES. If the prophet is not from God, they may not voluntarily submit to an apostle who is from God.

And Yes, Paul was not only an apostle, but a prophet as well. ALL apostles are prophets, but not all prophets are apostles, because ALL apostles are called by Jesus, sent by Jesus, and, after his death and resurrection, were guided by the Helper Jesus sent, the Holy Spirit!

The acts of the apostles are recorded in the book of Acts. Paul had several acts recorded there. As for prophets, Ba'al has "prophets", Zeus has "prophets", Jupiter has prophets, but none of them have apostles.

They do, but only if the prophet is also an apostle. There is no instance of a prophet who is not apostle correcting an apostle in the New Testament. But there are instances of apostles correcting other apostles.

Incorrect.

The apostles performed miracles and signs, and they were guided by the Helper, the Holy Spirit. They are apostles and prophets.

You have your beliefs and I have mine.
You are free to believe whatever you want to believe and I am not going to argue about it.

 

[Trailblazer]

"Proof texts"

I appreciate all the proof text @Trailblazer, but these "proof-texts" were answered previously, If not by me then by others. Unfortunately we do not get much in the way of a response. A little time goes by, we get asked about them again, we answer them again, we get no response, a little time goes by, we get asked about them again, we answer the again....
On and on it goes!

So here are a few I've posted which I'll post again. Find your favorite proof text, and see the rebuttal below. No need for me to repost them again.

However, If there's a verse missing, let me know. If it hasn't been addressed by anyone previously I'll make a reply.

I am not going to argue about verses and what they mean because they mean different things to different people.
As such they are proof of nothing.

If you want to believe that Jesus is God you are welcome to that belief, but I will never share that belief.
I could use the Bible to show why Jesus is not God, but what would be the point? You are going to believe what you believe.

 

[blü 2]

Who do you say, or who do you believe Christians should say Jesus was before "being found in human form”?

As your NT will readily affirm, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John ─ unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke ─ pre-existed in heaven with God and (regardless of what Genesis says) created the material universe. Both Paul and the author of John were influenced by such gnostic ideas.

It might help our readers if you could elaborate a bit more on the proper understanding of who Jesus was according to this particular verse.

Again, as you likely know, this is from the 'kenosis hymn' Philippians 2:5-11, which I read is in poetic form ie conforms to Greek scansion, and has given rise to the hypothesis that Paul is quoting someone else's verse, that of an earlier Christian. As I said above, Paul thought Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God as a favored being, I imagine of rank higher than the angels, and here he 'empties himself' (the kenosis of the title) in order to become an earthling. Paul, like John, never says just how that coming to earth was accomplished, but both leave the little clue that Jesus was descended from David (ie messiah-fit).

Above every name? Now that’s interesting!

That doesn't place Jesus above God. All five versions of Jesus in the NT state that they're not God and never claim to be God. Jesus doesn't become God till the 4th century CE when the Trinity doctrine becomes orthodoxy.

Before me every knee will bow;
by me every tongue will swear. Isaiah 45:23

That looks like we will give the same worship to Jesus that we give God.

I set out here >Jesus Failed Right?< some of the denials by Jesus that he's God. And I set out some of the problems with the later Trinity doctrine here >Why So Much Trinity Bashing?<.

"Before" means Jesus is eternal and not created. By him all things consist: He is our Maker.

Only the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John pre-existed in heaven and created the material universe. For their version of God, God is exquisitely pure spirit, who'd never sully [him]self with materiality, so it falls to the demiurge (>Demiurge - Wikipedia<) to do so instead, This links with the idea also found in John that God being so staggeringly remote from us, we need an intermediary who is Jesus. The synoptic Jesuses have no such problem, of course and I take it their followers continued to pray to God directly in the Jewish manner.

What "fulness?" you might ask. This would be the fullness of deity, just as scripture says:
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” Colossians 2:9

Yes, the King is present in the form of [his] envoy.

This is important! Note Jesus specifically refers to himself as the Son of man here, and not Son of God.

As you know, in the NT just who is the 'Son of Man' is ambiguous. Sometimes Jesus is plainly referring to himself, and sometimes Jesus is plainly referring to someone else, depending on which of the five versions of Jesus it is.

The Son of man is fully man and has to be given authority to forgive. After all, Jesus, as son of man, is only man, and man cannot forgive his own sins.

As the Son of God, he's always had that authority.

He is of course the son of God in three distinct senses in the NT. Paul's and John's Jesuses were created by God in heaven as I said. Matthew's and Luke's Jesuses were the result of God's insemination of a virgin, whereby Jesus acquired his Y-chromosome. But Mark's Jesus, the gospel's prototype, is just an ordinary Jewish male until his baptism by JtB, at which point the heavens open and God adopts him as [his] son in the same manner as [he] had earlier adopted David as his son (Psalm 2:7, affirmed Acts 13:33).

One more point: Jesus has full authority to forgive sins. It's not the Father forgiving sins "through" Jesus but Jesus forgiving those he wishes to forgive. There is no "In the name of the Lord" prefix that Jesus has to use here, but it all to the glory of the Father because it was the Father who sent him.

John 5:19 “the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing”

John 5:30 “I can do nothing on my own authority; as I hear, I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but the will of him who sent me.”

John 6:38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me ...

John 8:42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded and came forth from God; I came not of my own accord, but he sent me.

John 10:25 Jesus answered them, “... 29 My Father ... is greater than all”.

John 14:6 “No one comes to the Father but by me.” (Incompatible with triune concept,)

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.”

John 20:17 Jesus said to her, “Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.”​

Of course! When you see Jesus you have seen the Father. (See John 14:9)
Again, is Jesus Lord, an is he the "one", or do we have two separate and distinct Lords?
I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)

You stopped reading too soon. John 17 explains this idea more fully ─ that gnostic touch I mentioned of God being so remote from the material world that an intermediary is required.

Please elaborate and tell us why you believe Jesus is no good, and just where he admits to being no good in this verse.

Luke's Jesus is admonishing the speaker for assuming that Jesus is good, whereas God, says Luke's Jesus, is the only one who's good. You have Jesus' word for it, not mine.

If you disagree, please quote me Paul saying Jesus is God, the Jesus of Mark saying "I am God", the Jesus of Matthew saying "I am God", the Jesus of Luke saying "I am God", and the Jesus of John saying "I am God". (And skip the "Before Abraham was, I am" nonsense ─ that's John's Jesus, who pre-existed in heaven and created the material universe, so of course he was around long before Abraham. Read the context of his statement too, and the express denials such as I've mentioned above.)

If your premise is correct, the verse should read “No one is good but the Father alone.”

The God of the NT doesn't become "God the Father" until the adoption of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th century. Until then [he]'s the only God, just like the Jewish God. There is of course no hint of Trinitarian theology in the NT, where as I tire of pointing out to you, Jesus is merely God's envoy.

The relevant texts read

Mark 10:18 ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός

Luke 18:19 εἶπεν δὲ αὐτῷ ὁ Ἰησοῦς τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ θεός​

where as you doubtless know εἷς means one, singly, only, alone.

 

[BrokenBread]

God, who cannot lie says that He will not share His glory with anyone.

Isaiah 48:11
"For mine own sake, even for mine own sake, will I do it: for how should my name be polluted? and I will not give my glory unto another."

But the Lord Jesus has declared that He shared the Glory of God The Father in eternity past prior to becoming flesh .

John 17:5
"And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was."

This leaves only three possible options, either Jesus is God , or God is liar, or Jesus is liar .

For me . I will trust in Jesus and in the Father.

 

[JerryMyers]

Yeah, I think we're done.

Yeah, you ARE done, NOT me!

So, you can expect me to continue to comment on some of your nonsensical responses, if not to me, to the other posters here.

 

[Oeste]

As your NT will readily affirm, the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John ─ unlike the Jesuses of Mark, Matthew and Luke ─ pre-existed in heaven with God and (regardless of what Genesis says) created the material universe.

Yes, the preexistence of Jesus is certainly affirmed in the New Testament, and God created, as affirmed in Genesis, created our material universe.

Both Paul and the author of John were influenced by such gnostic ideas.

I've heard this before as has the historic church, but I see both Paul and John arguing against Gnosticism, warning believers of its potential impact on the church. In fact, Irenaeus (170 AD), argued extensively against Gnosticism using quotations from both Paul and John ("Against the Heresies").

He quotes Acts 2: 36 "God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Messiah" emphasizing Peter preached one God who is the Creator, countering the Gnostic notion of a lesser, flawed demiurge as the creator of our material world. With John, he cites John 1:14 ("The Word became flesh and dwelt among us"), to refute the Gnostic claim that Christ only appeared to take on flesh (Docetism, see my prior post #2511 here), arguing that John, as an eyewitness, testifies to the full humanity and divinity of Christ, which is essential for the redemption of humanity.

Again, as you likely know, this is from the 'kenosis hymn' Philippians 2:5-11, which I read is in poetic form ie conforms to Greek scansion, and has given rise to the hypothesis that Paul is quoting someone else's verse, that of an earlier Christian. As I said above, Paul thought Jesus pre-existed in heaven with God as a favored being, I imagine of rank higher than the angels, and here he 'empties himself' (the kenosis of the title) in order to become an earthling. Paul, like John, never says just how that coming to earth was accomplished, but both leave the little clue that Jesus was descended from David (ie messiah-fit).

Good insight as to how you understand and interpret our biblical text.

Above every name? Now that’s interesting!

That doesn't place Jesus above God.

Let's look at the verse:

Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"​

You are correct. This doesn't place Jesus's name above God's name, but neither is it placed below it. It simply means his name is equivalent to the name of God. So Jesus is not above, below, but as the Son of God he is God (To see him is to see the Father). He is also below God, as the Son of Man ("The Father is greater than I"). In short, Jesus has a dual nature.

This does not mean Jesus is the Father, as each is readily distinguishable from the other, but it's pretty clear that Jesus is God, and as we all know, there is but one God.

Jesus doesn't become God till the 4th century CE when the Trinity doctrine becomes orthodoxy.

Jesus has always been God, and not just since the 4th century CE. Any notion Jesus "became" God has been dispelled by archeological evidence. Note the 3rd century Meggido mosaic discovered here:

This authenticated mosaic is on display in Washington DC whereupon it will be returned to Israel.

I set out here >Jesus Failed Right?< some of the denials by Jesus that he's God. And I set out some of the problems with the later Trinity doctrine here >Why So Much Trinity Bashing?<.

No worries, when I get some time I'll post answers to any "proof-text" not previously answered here.

Only the Jesus of Paul and the Jesus of John pre-existed in heaven and created the material universe.

Two who testify??? That is sufficient.

What "fulness?" you might ask. This would be the fullness of deity, just as scripture says:
“For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” Colossians 2:9

Yes, the King is present in the form of [his] envoy.

I've heard of envoys who have the full authority of the King, but never the full body of the King.

Besides, the verse doesn't state Jesus has the fullness of the Godhead's envoy, but the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
In short, the verse simply means Jesus is God, and is better translated as "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form". As seen above, that is the way the early church understood it.

This is important! Note Jesus specifically refers to himself as the Son of man here, and not Son of God.

As you know, in the NT just who is the 'Son of Man' is ambiguous. Sometimes Jesus is plainly referring to himself, and sometimes Jesus is plainly referring to someone else, depending on which of the five versions of Jesus it is.

Jesus has a dual nature, the first and original as the Son of God, and the second as God incarnate, the Son of Man. He if fully man and fully God.

I'm not sure what you mean by "5 versions" of Christ. I suspect you mean the "5 versions" I would get if I asked 5 different people about you. It's expected and not anything to be alarmed about.

You stopped reading too soon. John 17 explains this idea more fully ─ that gnostic touch I mentioned of God being so remote from the material world that an intermediary is required.

No Gnostic touch here. God came Himself, personally and in the flesh, an idea repugnant to Gnostics but fully accepted by the early church.

If you disagree, please quote me Paul saying Jesus is God, the Jesus of Mark saying "I am God", the Jesus of Matthew saying "I am God", the Jesus of Luke saying "I am God", and the Jesus of John saying "I am God".

Talk to 5 different people about Moses and you will get 5 different things. Testimonies about Jesus will be as different as they are for you and me and no two will ever be the same. Are remembrances are unique, and we perceive and interact with each other in different ways.

The God of the NT doesn't become "God the Father" until the adoption of the Trinity doctrine in the 4th century.

Not quite, see Meggido Mosaic, above.

The relevant texts read

Mark 10:18

Luke 18:19
where as you doubtless know εἷς means one, singly, only, alone.

And as you doubtless know, both state God (Θεός, Theos) and not the Father ( Πατὴρ, Patér), alone.

 

[Oeste]

Just as a follow up, because it's not clear from the link, the Meggido Mosaic has an inscription dedicating the table where communion was held to "God Jesus Christ".

The original church dates back to 230 AD, was located under a prison in northern Israel, shows the relative importance of women in the church, features two fish rather prominently, and is the earliest Christian church to be discovered by archeologists.

 

[blü 2]

Yes, the preexistence of Jesus is certainly affirmed in the New Testament, and God created, as affirmed in Genesis, created our material universe.

The NT has five models of Jesus, each of which disagrees at key points with the other four. The trap about trying to invent a single Jesus by picking and choosing the characteristics you like is that all you end up with is a sixth model that disagrees with the other five.

I've heard this before as has the historic church, but I see both Paul and John arguing against Gnosticism, warning believers of its potential impact on the church. In fact, Irenaeus (170 AD), argued extensively against Gnosticism using quotations from both Paul and John ("Against the Heresies").

That doesn't alter the coincidence of ideas from Gnosticism and ideas found in Paul and John, Jesus as pre-existing in heaven with God, Jesus as maker of the material universe, Jesus as intermediary between man and very distant God.

Good insight as to how you understand and interpret our biblical text.

I read what it says, as I'd read any other historical document. I have no personal interest in or desire for it to say any particular thing, any more than I wish Caesar's Gallic Wars to say any particular thing.

What I observe with believers, though, is that they constantly wish 'interpretations' on it that comply with their particular take on Christianity, much of which, I'd say, is what they were taught attending church. That the NT supports the later Trinity Doctrine ─ not adopted till the 4th century ─ is one of many egregious examples.

Let's look at the verse:

Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"​

No, before we get bogged in the details again, first quote me Paul saying "Jesus is God", and the Jesus of Mark saying "I am God" and the Jesus of Matthew saying "I am God" and the Jesus of Luke saying "I am God" and the Jesus of John saying "I am God".

Out loud and proud, of course, not playing around with other words like "Lord" (which Paul clearly distinguishes from "God").

As I said, all that gets you is the Jesus of Mark and the Jesus of Matthew saying, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" and all four gospel Jesuses saying, "If it be my will, let this cup pass from me."

And for the reasons I provided previously, the Trinity doctrine itself is not only incoherent, a nonsense, but admitted out loud to be so, albeit by using the euphemism "a mystery in the strict sense".

Jesus has always been God, and not just since the 4th century CE. Any notion Jesus "became" God has been dispelled by archeological evidence. Note the 3rd century Meggido mosaic discovered here:

Unsurprisingly there was a push on to give Jesus god-status from as early as the 2nd century. Indeed the author of John is setting a course to distinguish the God of his Jesus from the Jewish God. (Paul had already done an analogous thing when he abandoned the covenant of circumcision.) However, as I keep pointing out to you, the claim that Jesus is God is mentioned nowhere in the NT, wasn't made official until the 4th century, and in its adopted form is incoherent, for the reasons I linked you and no doubt more.

Two who testify??? That is sufficient.

Nope, they're a minority ─ only two of the five versions.

Jesus has a dual nature, the first and original as the Son of God, and the second as God incarnate, the Son of Man. He if fully man and fully God.

Sure, churches are free to believe what they want. Jesus can have a magic pet dog named Benson, if that's what you want. I won't argue.

That is, unless you claim that the NT supports the view that Jesus had a magic pet dog named Benson. The NT doesn't support the (incoherent) Trinity notion, and equally it doesn't support the Benson notion.

I'm not sure what you mean by "5 versions" of Christ.

As with Benson, I have no problem with people who want to call Jesus 'the anointed one'. But I point out that nowhere in the NT does the Jewish priesthood anoint Jesus, so it's not unlike me styling myself "Nobel Prize Winner blü 2" ─ which I don't because I know full well I'm not a Nobel Prize winner. Anyway, to address your question ─

1. Paul's version of Jesus
2. Mark's version of Jesus
3. Matthew's version of Jesus
4. Luke's version of Jesus
5. John's version of Jesus​

 

[Eli G]

Jesus was a historical figure who lived in the first century and was a teacher to numerous followers. Many individuals either knew him directly or heard of him during his lifetime, and after his passing, through those who had known him.

The authors of what we refer to as the New Testament were either close to him (Matthew, John, Peter) , family (James, Jude), or had strong connections with those who knew him (Mark, Luke, Paul). While the details in various Christian texts may differ, suggesting there are "different versions of Jesus" is absurd, since all of them spoke about the same historical person.

It is clear that those who aim to portray the information about Jesus in the New Testament in such a manner ("versions") seek to mock the Christian Scriptures and cast doubt on Jesus' strong personality, teachings, and character during his human life.

 

[learner Daniel]

What nonsense are you talking about???

The only official stamp of authenticity of any doctrines or teaching comes from God Almighty and His prophets, NOT Paul, NOT some trinitarian authors, translators, preachers, church leaders, scholars and what have you. So, unless God Almighty and/or His prophets, including Jesus, mentioned or implied such teaching/doctrine, then your so-called ‘biblical evidence’ that Jesus is God is nothing more than just man-made nonsense.

Look, it’s really simple, to prove Jesus is God, all you have to do is show us from the scripture, (1) God Almighty said or implied Jesus is God, (2) Jesus himself said or implied he’s God and he preached the trinity doctrine in his lifetime on earth.

If you can’t show that, then YOU, whether you realize it or not, have proven from the bible Jesus is NOT God, so what more evidence do you need?? Ask yourself why you CANNOT show us, from the perspective of God Almighty and/or His prophet Jesus that Jesus is God.


When did I say your posts are all subjected to the teachings of the Quran or Bahais??

And, you seemed to have forgotten that you said, many times too, that this is a biblical debate, so why are you bringing in the Quran or the Bahais into the discussion??



I am NOT asking you whether the character figures in the bible have veracity or are authentic, I am asking you whether you believe all the written and spoken words of all these character figures are true simply because they are in the scripture. Do you understand what I am asking you??

Let me say it again - if you can’t show us from the scripture that God Almighty said or implied Jesus is God, Jesus himself said or implied he’s God and he preached the trinity doctrine in his lifetime on earth, then you, whether you realize it or not, have proven from the bible Jesus is NOT God, so what more evidence you need?? Ask yourself, buddy!

You are not even qualified to ask anyone for biblical evidence that Jesus is NOT God when you, yourself, cannot provide any biblical evidence from the perspectives of God Almighty and/or His prophet Jesus that Jesus is God. When you do, come back and ask me or someone the biblical evidence that Jesus is NOT God. Till then, stop asking nonsensical questions.

Please stand by what you said - this is a biblical debate, so stop bringing in the Quran, Bahais, or Bahaullah into the discussion!!

books were not defined to part of the new testament by the church until around 381 AD.
I think I already posted enough information from Scripture and Church Fathers why we believe in the Trinity.
Wife will soon boot me off, so good night.

 

[learner Daniel]

rth wife is standing on top of me

 

[Trailblazer]

rth wife is standing on top of me

My late husband never cared when I was on the forum all the time since he had other things he wanted to do.
He liked me being on the forum and sometimes he would come in the computer room and say "well, at least you re doing something for the Faith."

 

[Oeste]

The NT has five models of Jesus, each of which disagrees at key points with the other four. The trap about trying to invent a single Jesus by picking and choosing the characteristics you like is that all you end up with is a sixth model that disagrees with the other five.

I strongly agree with @Eli G's comment (#2530) on this. This concept of a 5 or 6 different Jesuses not only stretches but borders on snapping the bounds of credulity.

I had a relative pass away not too long ago. During the funeral service several people brought prepared statements to the microphone. Some talked of their shared childhood, others talked about the times they got in trouble, and still others talked about the influence he had in their lives, and the times they laughed and cried together. There were (I believe) 3 prepared and 3 spontaneous, and neither account was the same except in small details: like the hill they grew up on, his favorite sports team, his go-to drink, and how he had been a positive influence on all of them. No one left the service thinking they had just described 6 different people, and certainly no one thought to combine all 6 testimonies into a 7th.

That doesn't alter the coincidence of ideas from Gnosticism and ideas found in Paul and John, Jesus as pre-existing in heaven with God, Jesus as maker of the material universe, Jesus as intermediary between man and very distant God.

Jesus, from the standpoint of the historic Christian church, is God in the flesh. That strikes me as a very personal and not a distant God. Even in the Old Testament, God came and resided with His people, even to the point of speaking with them directly. We needed an intermediary because of sin, and not because we lived in a physical universe as the Gnostics claimed. I see Gnosticism rejected rather than embraced by Paul and John. Historically, Gnosticism was denounced by Christians as heresy.

What I observe with believers, though, is that they constantly wish 'interpretations' on it that comply with their particular take on Christianity, much of which, I'd say, is what they were taught attending church.

We all have influences, either by the church, schools, neighborhood, country, relatives and friends that are part of our immediate orbit. We interpret the world as they interpret ours.

What I like though is that the forum provides a platform where we can talk about our influences and what we believe, so I appreciate the time spent talking with you and others, no matter how much we may disagree.

Of course, we could all stand to be just a bit more agreeable...

Let's look at the verse:

Philippians 2:9-11: "Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"

No, before we get bogged in the details again, first quote me Paul saying "Jesus is God", and the Jesus of Mark saying "I am God" and the Jesus of Matthew saying "I am God" and the Jesus of Luke saying "I am God" and the Jesus of John saying "I am God".

No, no... you are taking away the best part of this thread. The OP states specifically that "Jesus is NOT God" which squarely puts the onus on the OP to prove their point.

​

Exactly my point is the deity of jesus, Jesus is not God. I was a non-believer and had a mind of show me when I first read the Bible. At no time when I read the Bible thought that Jesus was ever God from reading the scriptures. It was when I atteneded main stream Church I was introduced to the Trinity and the idea Jesus was God. The Bible does not teach Jesus is God but man doctrine. Hope this helps in your questions to my thread.​

Every comment Andy posted was refuted long before he abandoned it and/or I showed up here. It's up to the OP to evidence any point they wish to make especially when it's the initial point of the OP.

Out loud and proud, of course, not playing around with other words like "Lord" (which Paul clearly distinguishes from "God").

Yes, the onus is on the OP to show where Jesus said, out loud and proud "I am not God" or perhaps where he said "I am not Lord". Lacking that, perhaps they can show where the Father says the same about Jesus.

As I said, all that gets you is the Jesus of Mark and the Jesus of Matthew saying, "Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" and all four gospel Jesuses saying, "If it be my will, let this cup pass from me."

"Me, me, why have I forsaken me?" is EXACTLY why Modalsim was rejected as heresy. "Me, me..." is what you get when Jesus and/or the Spirit are "manifestations" of God.

You may not have noticed the subtle but rather vast difference between Monarchist Modalism, where Jesus IS the Father, and Trinitarianism, which states Jesus is NOT the Father.

Tertullian, (150 ~ 220 AD) of Carthage wrote extensively against Modalism.

And for the reasons I provided previously, the Trinity doctrine itself is not only incoherent, a nonsense, but admitted out loud to be so, albeit by using the euphemism "a mystery in the strict sense".

You misunderstand the Catholic church's use of the word "mystery". It simply means divine revelation that would not have been attainable by our own human reason.

The mysteries of God can only be revealed through the wisdom of God. They are not attainable using human reason or scientific means.

1 Corinthians 1:23-25 but we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling block, and unto Gentiles foolishness; but unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.​

And no, things beyond our understanding are not "a nonsense" and to think so would be the height of vanity.

Unsurprisingly there was a push on to give Jesus god-status from as early as the 2nd century. Indeed the author of John is setting a course to distinguish the God of his Jesus from the Jewish God. (Paul had already done an analogous thing when he abandoned the covenant of circumcision.) However, as I keep pointing out to you, the claim that Jesus is God is mentioned nowhere in the NT, wasn't made official until the 4th century, and in its adopted form is incoherent, for the reasons I linked you and no doubt more.

Now that is "a nonsense"!

I just showed that the early church believed Jesus is God. There it is, a church in 230 AD located in norther Israel. The worshipers there certainly did not get the idea from the Jews or the Romans. In fact, Tertullian states it came from the Statement of Faith that all Christians partook in.

So the idea Jesus is God was part and parcel of the early church, and the idea of the Trinity was right there with it. Tertullian wrote about the Trinity even before the creation of the Megiddo mosaic. As pointed out by Evans, Tertullian points out how scripture talks about God, and goes on to summarize the teaching of scripture on the persons of the trinity, and their relationship, thereby being the first to explicitly recognize the doctrine of the Trinity. Speaking Adversus (against) Praxean:

Else why is Christ called Man,
and Son of Man, if he has nothing that is man's, and nothing
derived from man?--unless perchance either man is something
other than flesh, or man's flesh is derived from somewhere else
than from man, or Mary is something other than human, or
Marcion's god is a man. Unless one of these suppositions were
true, Christ could not be described in the Scripture as man except
with reference to his flesh, nor as Son of Man except with
reference to some human parent: as neither could he be described as
God without the Spirit of God, nor as the Son of God without
God for his Father. Thus the official record of both substances
represents him as both man and God: on the one hand born, on
the other not born: on the one hand fleshly, on the other spiritual:
on the one hand weak, on the other exceeding strong: on the one
hand dying, on the other living.​

"For He was speaking to those in conjunction with whom He was making man and in whose likeness He was making him - with the Son on the one hand, who was to put on " man," with the Spirit, on the other hand, who was to hallow man - as with servants and eyewitnesses, in accordance with the unity of the Trinity."​

So we have the earliest discovered Christian church, on or before 230 AD, worshiping "God Jesus Christ" and we Tertullian with the earliest known mention of the Trinity which he states arises on the Statement of Faith he learned when he was converted as a pagan to Christianity.

All these things and you say, 2000 years later, that there is no mention of Jesus as God in the scriptures?

That also stretches any measure of reasonable credulity.


You are confusing the formalization of the Trinity doctrine, which occurred after the formalization of our biblical canon, and claiming this somehow constituted the ORIGIN of Trinity doctrine which is EASILY demonstrated as FALSE.

The Trinity doctrine no more originated in 4th century Nicaea than did the biblical canon. Both were formulated long before.

Unsurprisingly there was a push on to give Jesus god-status from as early as the 2nd century.

Actually, this unsurprising push came long before. Christ told his followers to go and preach throughout the nations and we see Tertullian discussing the Trinity in Carthage shortly after.

Jesus can have a magic pet dog named Benson, if that's what you want. I won't argue.

Anyway, to address your question ─
1. Paul's version of Jesus
2. Mark's version of Jesus
3. Matthew's version of Jesus
4. Luke's version of Jesus
5. John's version of Jesu

In order to get your 5 versions of Jesus, I think it best we talk with your magic dog. I won't argue with anything he has to say.

 

[Oeste]

rth wife is standing on top of me

My late husband never cared when I was on the forum all the time since he had other things he wanted to do.
He liked me being on the forum and sometimes he would come in the computer room and say "well, at least you re doing something for the Faith."

You two have no idea how I wish my wife was still with me, either to get me off this silly machine, or to keep me on.

 

[Oeste]

If you want to believe that Jesus is God you are welcome to that belief, but I will never share that belief.
I could use the Bible to show why Jesus is not God, but what would be the point? You are going to believe what you believe.

That's okay, but the real point is not to convince or believe what the other believes, as it is to understand or flush out salient points we might posit in an argument. At least that's the way I look at it.

 

[Trailblazer]

You two have no idea how I wish my wife was still with me, either to get me off this silly machine, or to keep me on.

You have no idea how I wish my husband was still with me, either to get me off this silly machine, or to keep me on.
Now all I have are the cats, whose only interest in getting me off here is that they are waiting for me to feed them.

 

[blü 2]

I strongly agree with @Eli G's comment (#2530) on this. This concept of a 5 or 6 different Jesuses not only stretches but borders on snapping the bounds of credulity.

You can't have read your own text critically, too busy making sure it says only what you want to hear.

Jesus, from the standpoint of the historic Christian church, is God in the flesh.

But only after the adoption of the Trinity doctrine, which as you appear to agree, is incoherent, in the 4th century CE ie NOT in the NT,

I've already twice invited you to win the argument by pointing out a clear statement in the NT of Jesus saying, "I am God".

You haven't done so.

And that's because you can't.

And that's because because not only do none of the five versions of Jesus ever claim to be God, but all five expressly deny that they are.

I've set those denials out for you.

Game, set and match.

Please give Benson a pat from me when next you see him.

 

[JerryMyers]

books were not defined to part of the new testament by the church until around 381 AD.
I think I already posted enough information from Scripture and Church Fathers why we believe in the Trinity.
Wife will soon boot me off, so good night.

Without the NT, Jesus is NOT God.
In the OT, the explicit formulation of ‘the trinity/Jesus is God’ is NOT present, thus, Jesus himself who only knew the OT, would NEVER claim himself as God. That, however, as we have seen, will not stop the Trinitarian scholars, preachers, etc, from bending themselves into pretzels, trying to tailor-fit some of the OT verses/passages into the NT in their efforts to showcase Jesus as God.

Truth is, Jesus never heard nor knew the NT in his entire life on earth. It was long after the departure of Jesus that the NT authors and the early church ‘made’ Jesus God.

So, your so-called ‘enough information’, and belief ‘Jesus is God’ came from the doctrines commandment of men.

 

[JerryMyers]

Jesus has always been God, and not just since the 4th century CE. Any notion Jesus "became" God has been dispelled by archeological evidence. Note the 3rd century Meggido mosaic discovered here:

​

This authenticated mosaic is on display in Washington DC whereupon it will be returned to Israel.

The authenticated Meggido Mosaic with its inscription does not tell us Jesus is God, it tells us in the 3rd century, there are group of people who worshipped Jesus as God. Likewise, worshipping idols predates Christianity by thousands of years, that does not tell us the idols are Gods, it tells us thousands of years before Christianity, idols-worshipping was already in practice.